200 Chrysler 200 Convertible test drive

The 2011 Chrysler 200 Convertible is basically a revamped version of the Sebring, which -- let's face it -- was a pretty lousy car, with a dreadfully cheap interior and miserable road manners. Blame for the Sebring's crappiness is generally lain on Daimler, who owned Chrysler when the Sebring was designed. New owner Fiat has directed Chrysler to fix as much as they can, and they've done an admirable job -- but have they done enough to put the Chrysler 200 Convertible on your short list? Read on.

Larger photos: Front - rear - interior - all photos

I always figured that turning the Chrysler Sebring Convertible into a decent car was akin to turning Josef Stalin into a decent boss. Nevertheless, Chrysler has done pretty well. The most noticeable change is the interior (link goes to photo), where the old car's cheap, tatty plastics have been replaced by softer, thicker, and higher-quality materials and switchgear that felt good under my fingers. Chrysler has even managed to improve the exterior styling -- I particularly like the smaller taillights, which give the 200 a better balanced look than the tail-heavy Sebring.

In terms of the driving dynamics, Chrysler has achieved limited success in the face of severe adversity. Chassis flex -- a problem that plagues most convertibles, and was particularly bad on the Sebring -- has been greatly reduced, though not entirely eliminated. Steering feel is better than the old car, although it's still too vague on center. The 200's ride is admirably quiet thanks to a generous dollop of sound deadening materials, and the optional wind blocker does a great job of eliminating wind turbulence and noise. (It's also easy to install and remove, a nice change from the Rube Goldberg devices I've seen in other convertibles.)

V6-powered 200s get Chrysler's new 3.6 liter Pentastar V6. The engine is quiet and smooth, but it doesn't accelerate as strongly as I expected given its 283 horsepower rating, although I did feel some torque steer (a pull to one side under hard acceleration). The 6-speed automatic didn't do the car any favors; it's smooth on the upshifts but agonizingly slow to downshift when power is needed. The 200 is also offered with a 2.4 liter four-cylinder engine, unchanged from the old Sebring. I didn't get a chance to try it out, but its fuel economy estimates aren't much better than the V6's, so I'm not sure there's any point.

There are still some issues that can't be overcome without a full redesign. First and foremost is the top design. The 200 is available with both metal and cloth convertible tops (the old Sebring's el-cheapo vinyl roof has, mercifully, been eliminated). Both tops use the same mechanism, which takes up most of the 200's generous trunk when the top is down. That's a real problem, because one of the chief advantages of a soft top convertible over a hard top is greater trunk space. The back seat has little legroom, and the 200's road manners, while better than the old Sebring, still aren't fantastic.

Pricing for the 200 convertible starts at $27,195, and the Limited model I tested is priced at $31,990. That's not outrageous by convertible standards, but it's a lot of money for what is still a pretty mediocre car. I'd rather spend a bit more for a Ford Mustang or a Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder. Or a lot more for an Audi A5. And if I could make do with less space, I'd get a Mazda MX-5 Miata. Still, if someone told me they were considering a Chrysler 200 convertible, I wouldn't advise them to run away screaming as I did with the Sebring.

Mediocre though the 200 may be, I'm amazed at how much Chrysler was able to do with this sow's ear -- it may not be a silk purse, but it's at least a polyester fanny pack. If Chrysler can do this much with the existing car, I'm hopeful that the next designed-from-scratch iteration of the 200 Convertible will be a front-runner. -- Aaron Gold

Disclosure: This test drive was conducted at a manufacturer-sponsored press event. Accommodations, meals, vehicles and fuel were provided by Chrysler. For more information, please see our Ethics Policy.